So, ALL Republicans "hate everything?" How does that sound to you? Does that sound normal to you? If I said ALL Democrats are liberal, or communists, would you agree with me? I am not the one that you are responding to, but you included me in your generalizing of Republicans.

I agree with NC.

I believe that if you have male plumbing you must use the male restroom and same with female plumbing using female restrooms. If you are gender confused, look down. If you can stand up to urinate, then you use the male restroom.

I believe that if you own a bakery, you should sell your cakes to gays, period. I do not believe that the gov should mandate that you go against your religion and provide a gay themed cake or cater to a gay wedding if that is against your faith. I think that is taking it too far with gov mandate. If I owned a store with a magazine stand, I would not sell porno. Would I be sued for that? But, I would sell my products to the abnormal. If I refused to sell gay magazines, could I be sued, or would I be sued?

I believe that if I owned a bakery and posted a sign that stated that all are welcome in my store but I refuse to bake deviant themed cakes or cater to a gay wedding, no one would be able to sue me. If so, then I bet I could beat it in court.

I have, on this site, been continually called a libtard even though I am a moderate. I said that once, then came the post saying "There are no Moderate Democrats."

So I am sorry my post offended you! I will correct my statement:

Given the verbal combat on this site, the inability of the Republican congress to pass anything, the amount of anger at Trump rallies, including violence....it would appear that some Republicans have anger issues.

That one has already gone to court:

Oregon bakery owners pay more than $135G in damages over refusal to make cake for gay wedding | Fox News

This is the definition of a nuclear family:

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.

You have the right to freedom of religion and we have the right to freedom from YOUR religion. The Constitution also says the will be NO establishment of religion.

If you've been gay, having gay sex, you didn't follow the laws. States had laws against perversion, sodomy, homosexuality, etc. You didn't make EVERY attempt to follow the laws. You're a relativist, like everyone else. You pick and choose what laws you'll obey. I'm a relativist.

The gay community at large throws "gayness" in our face. Are we 10 having a discussion next to the swings? That's the trouble with "you groups" who want to change things. You're dishonest. You deceive. You lie to get your way. You blackmail. It belongs in the DSM.

The linked article from Fox did not make any mention of the wedding cake being a deviant design but just the bakery owners refused service to a lesbian couple.

I totally agree you would not be in legal jeopardy if you would not bake a cake in the shape of a sexual organ. If the couple provided a miniature couple of the same sex for a cake topper, would that be any big issue? No. Or the baker could just request they put the topper on themselves. No problem.

Issues can always be worked out by reasonable people!

Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

I doubt that his wife and he paraded it about in the streets though. Don't you think that your deviant nature would be tolerated a bit easier if the abnormal behavior wasn't shoved in everyone's faces. I preferred not to view the 50 Shades of Gray movie also, and it wasn't forced on me.

To be honest with you, I am not sure of the circumstances of the court case. However, I was under the impression that they refused to cater to the gay wedding and refused to make the gay wedding cake. Selling to gays wasn't the issue, as I recall from the version that I got.

"A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed and charges dismissed."

Key word "PRIVATE." Keep your abnormal, deviant nature PRIVATE. It's called decency.

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

You must be joking about 50 Shades of Grey.

You are now safely in the minority!

Once again an uninformed person.....

The men in this case were having private intimate conduct but then the police came.

Houston police were dispatched to Lawrence’s (D) apartment in response to a reported weapons disturbance. The officers found Lawrence and Garner (D) engaged in a sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were charged and convicted under Texas law of “deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man).”

Wrong again....

After reading these posts it came to me.....

Sex on the Square:

Woman, 68, and younger lover, 49, caught having sex in Florida retirement community

Sex on the Utility box Morse Blvd and 466:

http://www.**************.com/villag...l-camino-real/

Now just who is in your face? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Get a room

Link for the blacked out one:

Public Sex Again In The Villages | Trap Shooters Forum

Is it reasonable to force someone to do something they don't want/are uncomfortable doing? The gay people were the unreasonable ones. FORCING the bakers to do something they didn't want/felt comfortable doing. Maybe for religious reasons. It doesn't matter, YOUR rights END when it affects MY rights. An "open" sign doesn't/shouldn't mean you MUST do whatever a customer wants.

I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.

But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

It appears I hit a nerve....But you are swinging at multiple targets.

I am the one that called that called the photographer and asked if he had any issues before I hired him. So on that point you are very wrong.

On the rest there is no reason to continue with this as you can no longer be civil.

Yes, and that couple was charged with a crime. What are you attempting to say? By the looks of your post, you seem to be a troubled person. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

Not related to the subject, but considering that we have an over hundred thousand resident community and the squares are open to the public, we have little crime. When you consider how close we are to Orlando, that's pretty nice.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Where does it say that there will be "no establishment of religion?" The way I read it, it means there will be NO GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED religion, such as they had in Britain. The queen is the head of their religion. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits religion. As a matter of fact it says congress cannot "prohibit" religious practice. I believe that a good lawyer could present case for more religious liberty based on the First Amendment.

Dear Guest:

Poster in post#99 has clearly stated the religious aspect of religious freedoms.

The LGBT community eschews religion in favor of government because they know government as a secular society will ignore the morality issue, except of course if that country happens to me a theocracy

To wit this government is making criminals of people who choose to follow their faith. And there within lies the dilemma . On the one hand a gay can go to many bakeries for a wedding cake but uses the government to force a religious person at this one bakery into submission or jail. In a theocracy gay people are punished for their belief. Do you see the hypocrisy of the American gay community activists ?

You intentionally misdirect the definition of a nuclear family. A nuclear family has always been a father (male) a mother (female) and off spring. Again we find the abnormal defining normal

Your definition of nuclear is very confusing to children and it may take a generation or two but the ill effects of such arrangements will surface.

In fact the consequences of the guidance offered by Dr, Spock surfaced not long ago creating trigger warnings, micro- agressions and a demand for save spaces .

The optics alone of this entire gay issue are testimony to nature intentions

Let me be clear I do not care nor do I judge what people do in their private lives. However gay activists are trying to turn this world upside down so that it fits their life style . they are using the courts to drive people into submission and subordination and they eschew religion because they know religion conflicts with their life style. Ergo the assault on religious freedoms and the majority of people's rights . Homosexuality is not the issue for most Americans its the heavy hand of government oppression forcing their secular beliefs onto citizens . Its totalitarian in nature.

Personal Best Regards:

We have little crime because of our demographics, affluent white people. That is the ONLY reason. As we "diversify" the crime will increase, it ALWAYS does.

Encourage a bunch of idiots to believe in an invisible man in space who controls everything? Why?

They lie, and then won't talk about it because WE'RE being "uncivil".

Who said that we believe in a "man in space"??? I won't go into religion or faith with you, because it is obvious that you are a very disturbed and angry person. Although, if I had no faith I guess I would be angry and disturbed also.

Yes, awareness is a curse. Oh to be naive living in an ignorant bliss...I envy you sometimes. But that isn't going to get me to believe in your "God" whom IF real and as omnificent as you say/think he/it is, is doing a really poor job of running things. I'd say we need new management.

When you're ready to talk, I'll be here to tear you apart. I'm not angry, just occasionally frustrated with the ignorant rabble who believe the lies and deception. It's tough to shake when they start the brainwashing when you're a helpless infant.

I wish you enlightenment...if you can handle it...otherwise, remain where you are, some people need an authority figure to follow. I'd rather be that figure than follow one...but that's just me.

Enjoy your day

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

It also does not state that there should be a falling all over the majority to provide for unearned benefits of special interest or minority groups.

Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups.

Could you explain?

This is what I said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Yes and all of them have struck down but the Supreme Court. Perhaps you missed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

This is the definition of Sodomy....

Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex and bestiality.

So the bottom line is if your wife and yourself ever engaged in oral sex you broke these laws as well!

This is what you said

I never claimed I did. Only YOU said you "tried your best to obey the state laws", is that close to what you said? You're a liar. You did what YOU wanted to do, the hell with the law.

This what I said:


Originally Posted by Guest View Post

My point has been made heterosexuals engage in sodomy.

This is what you said

But ONLY you claimed to "follow all the laws". You didn't. You're a liar. It's a disturbing trait among those who feel persecuted.

You wouldn't know this but my home state struck down sodomy laws in 1971....15 years in advance of when I would have been breaking them.

You called me a liar multiple times....that was uncivil. I only respond to you this time because of the post that identified you.

Of course you jest!

I realize that you are not replying to me, but I thought I would inject an answer that should be an automatic response....."affirmative action." That is an UNEARNED BENEFIT.

Seriously I don't....what unearned benefits?

I am not sure how affirmative action would apply to gays...

I believe the dolt means that gays are now guaranteed equal rights afforded to all groups - and he doesn't like equality for all.

He obviously thinks that equality for all applies only if you are white, straight, male, middle class or higher, Christian (not Jewish), and conservative.

OK I got it now...to obtuse for me.

This " group " LGBT are comprised of several subgroups and most often in day to day life they are not really supportive of one another just ask them .
That said these groups comprise a very small % of the US population but they have been taking all of the attention in the public square for some time now and no matter how many victories they score they are relentless at taking up the public square . It`s never enough and in the meantime our entire country is falling apart and we have become a weak nation internationally .
But hey lest get all worked up over a baker in Iowa who does not want to bake a cake for a couple of girls !

Wrong again.....

Oregon bakery owners pay more than $135G in damages over refusal to make cake for gay wedding | Fox News

The Iowa case was about a wedding venue and the couple were men...

Iowa Wedding Venue Which Rejected Gay Couple Files Lawsuit Against State's Civil Rights Commission

Both of these business were, at the time, open to the public. Therefore, under the ADA rules and Civil Rights law the owners had to provide public accommodation.

Posters here seem not to understand the law although it has been explained several times here.

We understand but don't agree with it. If I were in the jury, I'd fight for nullification, it's an unjust law to FORCE anyone to do business with anyone they don't want to do business with. You shouldn't become a public slave because you decided to sell your cakes for a living. Do ALL businesses have to register as "private clubs" to avoid these intrusive, unjust, "laws"?

You can't always get what you want.

:agree:

The response was generalized, not specific to the "gay" issue. It was in response to post #107 "Not sure what you mean about UNEARNED BENEFITS of Special Interest groups or Minority groups." If that makes me a "dolt" for entering the conversation, then you do have a gay issue problem.

Perceived inequities in equal rights by gays are fictitious and not related to civil rights. Gays have always enjoyed the same equal rights as normal folks. The only issue that has been distorted is over gay marriage. And marriage should never have been a gov issue, when marriage has ALWAYS been religious in nature. And I do not know of any religion that supports gay marriage in it's doctrine. I do not know all the religions, but most American supported religious faiths tolerate but do not condone or support gay marriage. Most Americans do NOT condone homosexual deviancy but tolerate it, unless forced to have it shoved into their faces, an example being that ridiculous gay pride parade comedy which makes homosexuals look like clowns and not to be taken seriously.

Gays DO receive special consideration, when in truth their practice is deviant in nature and morality. One example of special consideration is the "hate crime" laws. A person can be assaulted, but if he is either gay or black, it's considered to be a "hate crime." Assault is an assault and motive does not make it more of an assault or less of an assault. For normals it's just an assault, but a minority or gay it's considered a special case deeming a special dispensation.

The majority of America tolerates gay behavior as an unwelcome psychological flaw that is harmless if kept between two of like mind and kept private, like ALL sexuality should be. Religious faiths do NOT condone homosexuality and do not appreciate forced acceptance to legitimatize what they consider a sinful nature. But, most faiths also take the approach of "hate the sin, but love the sinner." Do not confuse tolerance with acceptance, because most states have voted against gay marriage in the past. Many have allowed civil unions though.

Libertarians believe that private business owners should be allowed the freedom to serve those of their choosing. Libertarians may not believe in discrimination but they also believe that it is an individual's right discriminate if they wish in their own privately owned business. Justifying it only in that it is privately owned and not a gov entity.

Personally, I believe that if I open a business to the public then if they ask for a product that I am selling, I should sell it to them. But, if they ask me to provide a service that is against my faith or belief, I should have the prerogative to decline. Example: If I sell cakes then I should sell to anyone entering my establishment. If I provide a catering service, then I should be able to decline service if it encompasses a perceived condoning of something adverse to my faith. If I am requested to provide a cake that indicates something that I deem despicable or deviant in nature, then I should be able to civilly decline. I see no problem with that. By catering to a gay wedding, then that could lead to the perception of condoning what Christians consider a sinful practice. Gays wish for acceptance, but they do not accept those of Christian faith. It appears that there is a one way track on acceptance. Forced compliance is not going to gain acceptance.

In my opinion, forcing acceptance on the moral majority is like pulling the tail of a sleeping tiger. It's best to leave it alone and move on.

They've had the kids brainwashed, they just need to wait for us older folks to die off and they'll have free reign. There is no sleeping tiger.